Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I worked with former merchant navy men (wartime service) who used to tell each other jokes by 'keying' them on their desks in Morse code - using unix programming shorthand is the modern (well, not that modern, it is unix) equivalent. Think 'specialist knowledge' rather than just geek. Though it can come across as a bit geeky.

'In the United Kingdom , halfway house usually refers to a

place where people with mental disorders , victims of

child abuse , orphans or teenage runaways can stay. The

latter are often run by charities , including the Church of

England and other churches, and community groups.

Residential places for offenders on bail are known as bail

hostels , [6] and probation supervised accommodation for

offenders post-release are known as Approved Premises.

[7] However, a halfway house more usually refers to

something combining features of two other things, for

example a solution to a problem based on two ideas.'


Taken from Wikipedia, naturally. If they are 'halfway houses' then they would most likely house those with mental illness or substance abuse problems; that doesn't mean they are criminals. There does seem to be confusion over the term and perhaps an overlap, as is suggested above. In America, terms like 'sober house' are used to specially refer to those catering to people overcoming drink dependency. Also, whether they are state or privately run may affect the treatment options available and the level of support. In many cases, residents of halfway houses are still receiving daily/weekly counselling and are trying to get their life on track.


My friend spent time in a mental institution and then went onto to stay in a 'halfway house' albeit privately run and not by that name; it was a place for her to get used to being outside of hospital, at her own pace. She's no criminal or inherently immoral person or a danger to society. She's simply a young girl who struggled with severe bipolar depression. I suppose Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) applies here as well...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
    • It's not magistrates that are needed, it's judges and they will rattle through these cases whether the loos are working or not. Barristers get a brief fee and a day rate. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...